The paedophile panic: why we have reached half way to Bonkers Island

THE COLUMNIST STOOD on the burning deck, whence all but he (and a couple of other columnists and one or two professors) had fled. In recent days HMS Sanity has been set afire and abandoned by — it sometimes seems — most of the people on board.

The Education Secretary is under threat and according to her Labour colleague, the ever-helpful Ian Gibson MP, has only till the middle of the week (ie, tomorrow) to show that she’s in full command of the school paedophile crisis that has so suddenly engulfed her. The BBC news spoke yesterday morning of a “weekend of revelations” concerning dodgy teachers, and then seemed only to be able to find one new one, and a decent Sunday broadsheet ran a headline about how Ruth Kelly had known about the paedo problem since last year — only to reveal in the text that by “last year” what was meant was the December just gone.

At least Monday’s Mail attempted to put horrid flesh on the scary bones, itemising a “chilling roll call . . .” of paedos working with our kids. And what did this list amount to? Nine men. One had possessed indecent images of boys, but was cleared in 2001 by Estelle Morris to work in all-girls schools. This chap appealed to a tribunal against Morris’s ruling, and lost. Another, Paul Reeve, the PE teacher whose exposure started this whole furore, was cautioned by the police in 2003 for accessing banned images of children on the internet. The then-minister Kim Howells was advised that Reeve did not represent a threat and cleared him to work in schools. He was forced to resign after eight days after the police raised concerns. A Mr H had molested a 12-year-old boy in 1976, but had subsequently been allowed by a tribunal to teach 14 pluses; a Mr W had been allowed to teach under the last Conservative Government, despite allegations, and was fired for “inappropriate touching” some unspecified time afterwards. A Mr Y sent obscene text messages to a 16-year-old girl pupil, a Mr Z was fired for “inappropriate words” in the condensation on his prep school flat, and in 2001 a tribunal allowed him to return to teaching in non-boarding schools.

In fact, before the weekend, the only cited case of a sex offender coming back into teaching and committing a crime was that of Steven Taylor, who was on the sex offender’s list, and who subsequently raped an 11-year-old girl student in 2001.

That’s the “chilling roll call”. Complete, save for what the Mail describes as “one of the most disturbing cases” of all, that of William Gibson. Gibson — the weekend’s cause célèbre — was convicted of indecent assault against a minor, but subsequently found to be teaching in a boys school on the south coast. According to reports many of the parents are deeply unhappy with the discovery. Mary Nunn, mother of 16-year-old Darryl, told the Mail how dreadful it all was, and how threatening. “You don’t allow a bankrupt to work at a bank,” she said, “so why a paedophile at a school?”

But Gibson’s more detailed history was that he had had sex with a 15-year-old girl pupil a quarter of a century ago, subsequently married her and had a child with her. The chances of a Portchester pupil being made pregnant and then wed by this particular maths teacher must be rated as slim. But then, I don’t know Darryl.

It’s pretty obvious that Gibson is not a paedophile and is no kind of threat to adolescent boys. In fact, given that we know his proclivities better than those of most people, he may even be less of a threat than other adults in Darryl and Co’s lives. And, like all but one on the Mail’s chilling roll call, he has also — as far as we know — never done anything wrong after being allowed back into teaching. In other words (whisper this) the decisions of the successive secretaries of state, tribunals and officials seem to have been broadly right. There is no crisis.

I’m not soft in this. Those assessed to be a risk to children should never work with those children. And people should be prosecuted for paying for or encouraging the production of child porn; they are rightly put on the sex offenders register. But that doesn’t mean that they are paedophiles.

They may be, but there is a distinction — reinforced for me this morning by seeing the beautiful young waitress in my local café — between looking and doing.

Equally, those who abuse their trust (however tempted) by having sex with their charges should be sacked, and suspended from holding such trust. But the issue is manageable risk, not punishment. After a few years cannot a man or woman, who is no real danger to pupils, be permitted to teach again, if it is decided that he or she is fit to do so?

As we have come to learn, the education system has not chosen to use the blunderbuss of disqualifying anyone who makes an appearance on the sex offenders register for whatever reason. Instead they have had a discretionary system — List 99 — which may include those who do not feature on the register, as well as excluding many who do. Given the scope of the register, that’s sensible; a 1997 flasher is not necessarily a 2006 kiddy fiddler.

For many panickers, however, this system is just too complicated. To his immense credit James Naughtie, the Today programme presenter, attempted to explore the difficulties with Margaret Morrissey, spokeswoman for the National Confederation of Parent Teacher Associations, yesterday. “It seems to be clear and simple to me and maybe to millions of other parents,” said Ms Morrissey, who has spoken to about 100, that those on the sexual offenders register “should not ever be allowed to work with children.”

It’s a view. There may not actually be a big problem with the current system, but perhaps the need is to change it anyway so that, in the words of the Labour MP Martin Salter, confidence is restored. Let’s ostentatiously fix the roof that ain’t broken. But there are big problems here, of which the biggest is the problem of natural justice. As Mr Gibson told the Bournemouth Echo yesterday: “I know what I did was wrong and I regret my actions . . . but I love teaching and I think I have something to offer.”

Shami Chakrabarti, where are you when we need you? If you listened carefully over the past few days you will have heard the obvious sounds of the Government responding to the panic by panicking itself, and the less obvious sounds of the opposition parties being very careful not to suggest solutions. That’s because there aren’t any, certainly not from the Government. Why anyone should believe that things would be made a single iota better by officials, panels, committees or a pantheon of the gods of Olympus taking decisions without ministers is beyond me.

But, as I said, most have fled the ship by now and are half way to Bonkers Island. As one Portchester mother complained, Mr Gibson was her son’s maths teacher and it was disgusting, because he was always giving the class detentions. Devious, devious swine.

Comments

[Sarah Hague]

The concept of risk management is fine until the day your child is at the receiving end of someone's bad decision. As the government is notorious for bad decisions, it's rather a cause for anxiety in parents to know that their children's teachers could be on the sex register.
If parents entrust their kids to schools, then schools have a duty to ensure that trust is not abused.
It just seems logical not to let sex offenders work in schools where the objects of their offense are walking around before their eyes day in day out.

[Harveyr]

I agree with David Aaronovitch. The "paedophile teacher" scare is likely to turn out to be nothing of the kind.

Ruth Kelly's reputation will be dented, but she'll survive in post, as the shock and moral indignation will turn out to have been wholly misplaced panic. A great deal of this panic has been generated by the politicians and representatives of parents, teachers and charities, who should be keeping a proper sense of perspective. Especially where the safety of children is concerned.

When its seen that Kelly, Howells and their department have not, actually, been giving paedophiles a clearance to work with children, maybe their accusers will be forced to back down.

Will some consideration be given to the media revisiting their scare mongering stories in relation to the teachers concerned? Two of them are presently "in hiding" in fear for their safety? The truth would seem to be that far from being devious, manipulative abusers, they have been completely honest about their status and history in their dealings with both the DfES and the respective school and agency which employed them.

I just raise one question which should not be left hanging: If the enquiry finds that Kim Howells is found to have acted quite properly, and there was no conclusive evidence against Mr Reeve. Will the press direct their attention as to how Norfolk Police could possibly have been justified in cautioning him?

[Keith Downer]

It may well be that the hysteria about possible paedophiles lurking inside every school playground is unjustified but that really misses the point about the present uproar. A government department responsible for ensuring that a particular policy aimed at protecting our children worked effectively, failed miserably.
Given the reviews and soul-searching which followed the tragic events in Soham, it frightens people that this could happen. In the circumstances, a zero-tolerance approach could have been expected and was expected by most of the public. We expected Ruth Kelly - and those responsible to her - to have entered "must check" notes at the top of each page in their diary but what has emerged?
This is not just a case of carelessness or inefficiency; it is stupidity of the highest order not to have this situation under control and that is what frightens people. The ability to prioritise is a fundamental requirement for anyone in authority. Coupled with the skill to appoint capable and effective subordinates, who you can confidently delegate to, is another. Ruth Kelly is the latest in a long line of politicians who have failed miserably when given this level of authority.

[JohnK]

>A government department responsible for >ensuring that a particular policy aimed at >protecting our children worked effectively, >failed miserably.

I'm not at all clear that the DfES has failed at anything. The system has been working exactly as intended. Convictions result in SOR+ Automatic List 99 inclusion. Caution result in SOR + review before List 99 inclusion.

So far, those who made the decisions to allow the 'outed' men to continue teaching have stood behind their assessments, made not by the minister but by a specific team who review ? 1000 similar cases per year and perhaps 100 Operation Ore cases similar to that of Mr Reeve.

One can argue that this is inefficient for the small number of exceptions made, amd it certainly exposes the minister to potential political embarrassment but the question remains unanswered as what was so compelling about the lack of evidence in Mr Reeves case that persuaded the DfES team and Mr Howell to let him continue teaching?

There have been major concerns from defence teams about the conduct of Operation Ore, which have never perhaps been given due attention by the mainstream press. It was certainly spectacularly inefficient in child protection terms and cost well in excess of £50 million pounds.

Keith D assumes that those working for the DfES were not "capable and effective subordinates". The cases that have so far come to light might suggest that they have been doing an extremely good job and that Operation Ore deserves a somewhat closer examination.

[Bob Doney]

Even poor old Raskolnikov got redeemed in the end, and he done her in with a axe. But maybe there was more enlightenment around in 19th Century Russia than in our troubled times.

[David Hill]

I heard you on Radio 5 earlier today and you were the only one making any kind of sense. One lady in particular sounded as if she was taking soundbites from Chris Morris' parody of the subject from a couple of years ago, stating without proof that the 'psychology of paedophiles is different to the rest of us'.
Once more the government has taken the easy option and delegated power onto a non elected body. Another step has been taken down the road away from democracy, and the media has once more shown that it has power without responsibilty and has no qualms about abusing it.

[Martin]

There are two aspects to managing risk - how likely it is that something will happen, and how awful the consequences of that event will be. Parents, naturally enough, consider consequences rather than the probabilities; ministers have to consider both.

But there is one political question which does seem worth asking. The Bichard proposals, which were aimed at reducing risk and seem to have been generally accepted, were made some time ago - why did this government think it more important to devote legislative time to, say, banning foxhunting or the glorification of terrorism than to implementing them? (Especially since the first of these measures seems not to work and the second has been described as unworkable in principle.)